Amy Reyes
In relatively recent developments during the late 20th and the whole of the 21st century,
digital technology was created and evolved from costly giant, slow, limiting machines to still costly, but small, and fast infinite sources of knowledge and tools that can come in many forms, such as computers or phones. For the “small, small” price of an Internet bill and the price of a device of one’s choice (plus a phone bill if the said device is a phone), one can access the World Wide Web to find resources or information about anything or anyone. Those who can access these devices and resources have become intimately familiar with the practical consumer mechanisms of digital technology, however, not all are aware of the long-term impacts that digital technology, such as social media platforms or formal national websites, has on people and their communities. Mary Chayko and Alexia Maddox explore this technological impact on people in their respective works, “Techno-Social Life: The Internet, Digital Technology, and Social Connectedness,” and “Beyond Digitial Dualism: Modeling Digital Community.” Chayko argues that the attributes of digital technology, such as the Internet, mobile communication, and social media networking, have catalyzed a “triple revolution” in social connectedness. Maddox argues that community experiences should not be separated into online and offline spaces or categories as the characteristics of a community can be found in both the online and offline spheres. In this blog post, I will explore Mary Chayko and Alexia Maddox’s articles more
in-depth to highlight their accomplishments and shortcomings while also raising issues about the impact that unregulated technology has on people and communities both online and offline.
In Mary Chayko’s article, “Techno-Social Life: The Internet, Digital Technology, and Social Connectedness,” Chayko talks about people who live “techno-social lives” where they use digital communication technology to “share information, identify interpersonal commonalities, get to know others, and interact and form social connections” (976). Here, Chayko notes how widespread use of the Internet, mobile communication, and social media networking has changed the game for how people connect and interact with others in both the online and offline spheres–which are arguably intertwined together. However, this is not true for everyone as there is a deep digital divide between communities where technology is rich and advanced and communities where technology is not as advanced or accessible to users compared to others.
Similarly to Alexia Maddox’s article, Chayko also talks about how digital technology can facilitate the creation of communities as sociological concepts regarding the attributes of communities, such as a sense of belonging and/or meaningful social interactions, can be found in the online sphere on social networking sites. Although there are many advantages to having an online community that is readily accessible–such as easily making meaningful connections from afar or having a personal safe space to post regardless of one’s identity and beliefs–there are also many disadvantages–such as becoming stressed from being chronically online or feeling disconnected from others due to not being able to easily connect with others in an intangible way. Chayko ends their article by explaining how communities intersect and impact each other in both online and offline spheres as digital technology enables in-person interactions and aspects of communities to also occur online where communication can be taken a step forward with mass mobile communication and social networking.
In Alexia Maddox’s article, “Beyond Digital Dualism: Modeling Digital Community,” Maddox argues against digital dualism–the belief that community experiences should be categorized into separate online and offline spheres–and proposes a methodological approach to study the various digital communities present online. Here, Maddox explains how the line between the online and the offline is blurred as the attributes of a community can be found in both spheres. To analyze digital communities, Maddox’s model requires one to observe the environmental niche of a digital community through three layers: the built environment of a community, its patterns of social organization, and the mediating culture. The built environment of a community refers to the technological layer of the environment, which can be either digital, locational, or material. The patterns of social organization within a community refer to the social aspect of social capital, which can take form in the characteristics of the social networks and the elements of social cohesion. The mediating culture of a community refers to the collective identity that is ascertained by the overlapping values of the members. By focusing on all three of these layers in a community and on the ego of individuals, one may be able to identify how the open social structures of digital communities emerge online. Through their model, Maddox found that digital communities were mostly formed by strong and weak social ties where the characteristics of the community depended on the users’ passions, interests, and identity to foster engagement and a sense of belonging. Maddox ends their article by shortly delving into what big data is and how big data can be potentially used by social scientists to study the lives of digital communities more in-depth.
Although Mary Chayko and Alexia Maddox both discuss the formation of communities and social lives on digital platforms, arguing that there is a blurring of lines between the online and the offline spheres of community, both articles were missing another aspect of communities
and social lives that is important to note and can be found in both the online and offline spheres–which is deviance. Deviance is a behavior that people exhibit that goes against social rules or norms and usually garners a negative response from others around them. According to the sociologist Émile Durkheim, deviance is a normal phenomenon among communities that arguably helps form the rules and social norms of a community, increase conformity, and strengthen social bonds among people. By acknowledging that unregulated technology can cause online deviance to form and impact communities, a deeper understanding of how online communities and technosocial lives form can be understood by exploring how all aspects of a community–even the deviant ones–can manifest online and produce communities similar to that in the offline sphere. Just like how deviance can be dangerous and disruptive in the real offline world, online deviance can be just as dangerous and disruptive to both the online and offline world as more people can act out under the protection and anonymity of the internet without fear of facing serious repercussions. Therefore, more studies should be done on how deviance manifests online to further understand the nuances of the formation of communities online.